Letters: Readers Response
to Survey on Electronic Devices

Dear SFA:

If the SpeechEasy is being marketed as a cure, that is wrong, but as a tool, I find it very helpful. I spoke today at lunch to a large group of advertisers. It helped me to control my gentle onsets more effectively and I had fewer blocks than usual. I realize those in search of the magic pill will be disappointed, but as a tool, it is immensely valuable to me.

I complained of its price, also, but I’m comfortable the company has invested much in its research beyond the manufacturing cost of the device.

My clinician, Helen Duhon of Franklin, Tenn., thought long and hard before she began handling the device. She is a Vanderbilt speech therapy grad who is trying to interest them in further study of the device.

You are wise to warn against the device as a “cure,” but as a tool I think it has much to offer. The SFA performs a valuable service and there are scams out there to be wary off. I don’t think the SpeechEasy device is one of them—but it certainly is not a cure.

Vince Vawter, IN
Editor, Evansville Courier & Press

Hi SFA,

I am a school based SLP, employed by an intermediate school district. We have had many parents of children who stutter interested in auditory feedback devices. Our assistive technology department has decided to purchase a Fluency Master for a student through Michigan State University.

I have a great interest in stuttering and have agreed to analyze and provide data for the ISD to determine the effectiveness of these devices. Personally, I do not think it is wise for schools to purchase these devices, as they may be unleashing something they cannot control. They are costly devices that have little empirical evidence that support their efficaciousness.

I am reviewing and analyzing videos of the students before the Fluency Master, at the introduction of the Fluency Master, and 2-3 months after initial use.

Alisa MacDonald, M.S., CF-SLP
Battle Creek, MI

Dear SFA:

The Winter 2004 edition of SFA’s newsletter reported the results of a survey that appeared largely critical of the appeal and effectiveness of electronic auditory feedback devices. While the article included quotes from satisfied users, including those who had used their device successfully for more than a year, the overall gist was that electronic auditory feedback devices are in fact not a “magic bullet.”

As the president and CEO of one of the leading providers of such devices, it may come as some surprise that I agree with this conclusion… electronic devices are not a “cure” for stuttering. Instead, they offer a technologically advanced treatment option that can help people who stutter speak more fluently with less effort. As such, it is important that anyone considering such a device be able to separate fact from fiction.

A key to clearing up misconceptions about these devices is to understand where they fit on the continuum of available treatment options. Stories in the news media tend to provide an oversimplified view, proclaiming AAF devices as “miracle cures.” As speech fluency professionals, we must do a better job communicating the benefits and limitations of AAF devices. To this end, new and upcoming research data published in peer-reviewed scientific journals provides some valuable insight.

A study published last year in the International Journal of Language Communication Disorders (Vol. 38) tested the efficacy of the device called SpeechEasy, which was referenced in SFA’s previous newsletter article. The study subjected seven users to a variety of tests, and reported that the device reduced stuttering significantly while helping to produce speech that was more natural.

While the study provides many valuable answers, it also raises some questions. Foremost among these is the long-term efficacy of such devices, given that the study subjects were followed for just four months after being fitted.

What the already reported data shows is that when used in conjunction with conventional therapy, the SpeechEasy AAF device enhances the rate of progress among patients, and is a valuable new tool for SLPs to consider in concert with other therapeutic options.

Darwin Richards
CEO, Janus Development Group
(SpeechEasy)

Dear SFA,

I commend your survey about electronic anti-stuttering devices. However, the survey showed that persons who stutter have misconceptions about the devices.

The most common reason cited for not buying a device was “expense/lack of insurance.” Since 1992, Casa Futura Technologies has helped every American consumer who has needed our devices, regardless of his or her ability to pay. Survey results included a complaint about a “$700-800" fee and “90% money-back guarantee” apparently charged by another company. Casa Futura has always offered a 60-day, 100% money-back guarantee.

Respondents “cited concerns over lack of long-term research on devices.” The International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (2003, Vol. 38, No. 2, 119-129) recently published a long-term study of our least expensive devices. Researchers tested nine severe adult stutterers before using the devices, and again three months later. The subjects used the devices about thirty minutes per day. The subjects’ stuttering diminished 50%, without any other speech therapy.

One respondent complained about his device being difficult to use in noisy environments. Hearing safety is a paramount concern. Users who experience ringing in their ears or headaches should discontinue using their device and get their hearing checked. It’s also possible that overuse of an anti-stuttering device could cause a child’s auditory processing to develop abnormally. To minimize hearing impairment, anti-stuttering devices have a variety of noise-reduction features.

The last comment was telling. A mother wrote, “I’m most disappointed. It wasn’t a quick fix. Since it wasn’t, [my son] quit using it.” That isn’t the device’s fault! Successful stuttering treatment requires hard work over a long time. The devices can be of great value when used as part of a larger stuttering therapy program. Anyone looking for a “quick fix” is likely to be disappointed.

Thomas David Kehoe
Owner, Casa Futura Technologies